Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Earl who wrote (10243)	3/7/2005 1:33:52 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Respond to of 20039

Excellent! Well said, Don. :) Now back to the green cheese.... This story is hugely overripe: rigorousintuition.blogspot.com

To: Don Earl who wrote (10243)	3/7/2005 4:08:25 PM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Don > If you had control of 4 jumbo jets, what possible advantage would there be in exercising the above fancy footwork when all you need to do to create a plane crash is to crash the plane? Of course, I understand what you are getting at but I can't prove it. In fact, others would then add, if you can crash planes into buildings and destroy them that way, why go on to demolish them with explosives? The simple truth is that the only aspect I'm confident about is the controlled demolition. Whether the alleged Flights 11 and 175 actually flew into the buildings, or even flew, for that matter, that I cannot say any more than I can say, for sure, that they were piloted by hijackers. Indeed, hijackers whose names do not appear on the passenger manifest and of whom many are/were still alive. > The arguments for missing planes are hardly new, and do not get any less silly with age. But these arguments are not based on mere unwillingness to accept the obvious. There is indeed reason why people have questioned the "genuiness" of the planes which crashed into the WTC, and also the Pentagon. Indeed, as with the German article, I don't think people go to the trouble to develop an argument, particularly an abstruse one like superimposing videos, simply for the sake of it. The reason, I would contend, is they are not intellectually satisfied with the "facts" as they appear to be and are groping for another reason. > There were a huge number of cameras which captured the second plane strike, not to mention 10s of thousands of eyewitnesses. Superimposing the planes, from every angle, on every professional and amateur clip, would be flat out impossible, especially considering most of this footage was broadcast virtually in real time. I have no argument with that. But what I do question, on the basis of the "holes in the wall" hypothesis, is can one be 100% certain that the planes in the above videos are really Flights 11 and 175? > That the walls of the structure were penetrated at three points; two for the engines, and once for the body of the plane, does not strike me as unusual. Those would be the points of the highest kinetic energy Superficially, that is correct and I would have agreed with you except for a. The holes in WTC2 don't match the silhouette of the aircraft which has been superimposed on them. This is similar to the French hypothesis concerning the plane which struck the Pentagon b. The aircraft which struck the Italian building was much smaller than the one which allegedly struck WTC2 but it created a bigger hole. c. If it is then argued that the surrounding steel lattice on the WTC presented a higher resistance to the ingress of the aircraft than the outside of the Italian building, how come the aircraft penetrated the WTC like a hot knife into butter? Indeed, not a fragment of debris fell externally at the point of impact. Furthermore, unlike the impact of the plane, or whatever, against the Pentagon where there was an enormous fireball, coincident with the aircraft "sliding" into the WTC there was hardly a flash. Zilch. That lends credence to the argument that the aircraft shown on the video (I refer to the one with the "pods") was not real. d. This is possibly less obvious, but the German article goes to some length to show that the explosion and fireball on the North wall of WTC2 was, in fact, a few floors higher than the point of entry of the aircraft into the South wall. If this, in fact, is true it would mean that the North wall fireball was caused by something other than the aircraft which struck the South wall. Indeed, it would make one wonder what damage the aircraft actually did cause? > While there is evidence which may suggest those points were softened up with explosives just prior to impact Ring-a-ding-ding!! So, by your very own argument, if they were going to use explosives to bring down the buildings, why fly planes into the buildings? I will answer for you -- because the whole exercise was to create maximum shock and awe. It was not sufficient just to crash planes or demolish the buildings -- there had to be the biggest possible spectacle to create the greatest amount of terror -- and consequent anger. > the damage appears to be consistent with a plane going splat against the side of a steel frame building. But there was no splat! > A reasonably clever person can make a convincing argument for virtually anything, simply by ignoring any evidence which refutes their basic premise. It's precisely for that reason that I bring the German article for discussion. Does it omit anything or does the "approved" theory miss anything? --- because both can't be right.